Inequality versus Safety: The Argument against Profiling Islam

On September 11th, 2001, 19 Arab terrorists hijacked four Boeing jet aircraft with the intent to crash them into various high-profile targets around the United States. Two of the planes were crashed into the North and South Towers of the World Trade Center Complex in New York City. The third plane was crashed into U.S. Military Headquarters, the Pentagon and control of the fourth aircraft was regained by passengers. Shortly thereafter, it crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. There were nearly 3,000 total fatalities (“The 9/11 Commission Report,” 2004). On July 7th, 2005, four bombs were detonated in London, England – three on the London Underground mass transit system and one on a double-decker bus in Tavistock square. 52 individuals were killed, with more than 700 casualties (“Follow-up report,” 2013). On September 11th, 2012, the American diplomatic mission at Benghazi, Libya, was attacked by a group of heavily armed individuals. The resulting battle claimed the lives of four American diplomats, with an additional dozen wounded (“Statement by the Director of Public Affairs for the Director of National Intelligence,” 2012). All these events are linked, in that they are the result of several decades of generally oppressive American foreign policy. Perhaps more importantly, however, is the fact that all these events were perpetrated by individuals practicing fundamentalist, militant Islam. As a result of these recent attacks and others before them, a stigma has arisen in western civilization regarding all practitioners of Islam: That of the Arab, Muslim terrorist. This stereotype has convinced many American citizens and representatives of the United States government, who point to the perceived increase in violence among those who maintain the Islamic faith, that it has become necessary to pass legislation allowing the lawful profiling of these individuals, on the basis of public safety. However, it is both illogical and unjust to racially, religiously or ethnically profile practitioners of Islam in order to ensure public safety.

All legislation in the United States, regardless of content or geographical scope, is subject to the same basic body of laws governing its implementation: The United States Constitution. Any legislation to be passed anywhere, must not contradict any of the articles that can be found in the constitution. There are multiple articles and amendments which would be effectively infringed upon should the legislative bodies of any state, or the Congress, seek to impose laws which might allow the lawful profiling of citizens on an arbitrary basis. Additionally, there are multiple Supreme Court rulings established throughout the 20th century prohibiting such acts. The first amendment of the United States Constitution includes the “Free Exercise of Religion” (Constitution of the United States, 1776). This was further bolstered by the Supreme Court decision made in the case of Wisconsin v. Yoder (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1971), where the justices found that “unduly burdens the practice of religion,” without a compelling interest, even though potentially neutral, would be unconstitutional. This was further elaborated upon in Employment Division v. Smith (Employment Division v. Smith, 1990), where the court found that no such compelling interest was required by the constitution, provided the law in question does not target a particular religion or religious practice. Additionally, the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution, enacted during the reconstruction era, states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” As such, any laws to be passed at the state, federal or local levels attempting to profile individuals who practice Islam, simply on the basis that they do, in fact, practice Islam, are wholly unconstitutional and unjust.

An additional argument against the implementation of laws and practices designed to profile Muslims under the guise of increased public safety is that the statements “All terrorists are Muslims,” and its inverse, “All Muslims are terrorists,” are categorically false. “Terrorism,” as is described by the modern definition, is the systematic use of violence as a means of political coercion, a tactic that predates not only modern Islam but any of the Abrahamic, monotheistic religions around the world. In order to make the assertion that “Muslims are Terrorists,” or vice versa, one must subscribe to a special kind of historical revisionism, one where Islam seems to be the originator of violence and terrorism, but also a history where “Terrorism” connotes religious, rather than political ideals. In fact, the idea of “religious terrorism” in itself is a contentious issue, as even those who might argue that the Crusades of the Catholic Church can be categorized as religious terrorism, may often run into the counter-argument that they were the result of the political motivations of many popes. Terrorism in the modern world, from the beginnings of the 20th century and beyond, has its roots in politics as well: From the Bolshevik revolutionaries, to Mao Zedong’s “Great Leap Forward,” to the Mujahideen fighters the United States initially supported, in their attempts to extricate the Soviet Union from their homelands (many of whom would comprise the bulk of our Arabic, Islamic terror cells for the ensuing three decades). All these examples, of course, are of foreign terrorists; specifically, foreign terrorists of the eastern hemisphere. For examples of terrorism in modern, western civilization, look no further than the Irish Republican Army. For examples of domestic terror cells, born and bred in the United States, we have the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nation and a myriad of other white supremacist groups whom the United States government has deemed “terrorist organizations.” Due to the decidedly diverse nature of the many terror organizations officially recognized by world governments, one can ascertain that the persistence of violence to a political end is easily identified throughout the globe. To make the assertion that a single race, ethnicity or religion is the sole source or primary perpetrators of any of the injustices and atrocities associated with terrorism, is to subscribe to nearly the same ideological concepts historically espoused by intolerance around the world.

Counter-arguments to the thesis provided in this essay, that Muslims of all races, ethnicities, and creeds should be subject to additional screening in public venues and on public transportation, in order to increase the safety of said public, are based upon the vast numbers of Muslim terrorist attacks that take place throughout the world. The general argument posed by those who retain at least some amount of pragmatism (while simultaneously denouncing an entire subsection of humanity), is that while not all practitioners of Islam are terrorists, the vast amount of terrorist attacks perpetrated around the world can be attributed to fundamentalist, militant Islamic terror cells. The evidence provided is generally news of yet another suicide bombing, car bombing, or American military casualty by IED (improvised explosive device), something that is reported in American media on a nearly daily basis. Unfortunately for those who subscribe to the belief that Muslims are innately predisposed to violence and that allowing them to enter public places, unmolested, will result in the needless mass deaths of innocence, there is no statistical data or otherwise to support their claims. In fact, a study published by Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill concluded that “"Muslim-American organizations and the vast majority of individuals that we interviewed firmly reject the radical extremist ideology that justifies the use of violence to achieve political ends," ("Study: Threat of Muslim American Terrorism in U.S. Exaggerated,” 2010). The study was an attempt to statistically track the threat of radical Muslims on American soil. It consisted of identifying individuals who were considered “Muslim-American terrorism offenders.” A list was compiled over a period of eight years after the September 11th attacks, and 139 individuals were listed- a rate of 17 per year, which was deemed statistically low compared to other violent crimes in the United States As such, it stands to reason that any arguments to the contrary, barring any numerical or statistical proof, remain unfounded.

Despite very much in the way of statistical and anecdotal evidence to the contrary, the perception among a significant percentage of Americans remains that of the “Islamic terrorist.” A lot of the credit for the halted advance of “Islamophobia” in the years following the 9/11 terrorist attacks can be attributed to then-President George W. Bush, who told the nation in a speech “We are not at war with Islam.” Unfortunately, the issue of intolerance for Muslims among many in the United States reared its ugly head in 2010, when plans to build an Islamic outreach center, much in the vein of the YMCA, were unveiled. It was to be built in New York City, just a few blocks away from ground zero. Opponents of the center’s construction protested en masse, citing stories of “victory mosques” and claiming the building of such a place, devoted to the religion of those who perpetrated the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center Complex, was inappropriate, and an affront to the memory of those who perished. Supporters, meanwhile, battled back in the press and on the news, until they, too, were lined up in protest at the site. The construction site became such a point of national contention that several politicians of national acclaim, including President Barack Obama, spoke out in favor of, or against the proposed outreach center. During this time, many of the more conservative assemblies in states such as Michigan, Missouri and Alabama began passing symbolic legislation banning Sharia law, a body of laws instituted by the Koran, much in the same way Christians have their ten commandments. Once the media circus had subsided and local law enforcement had effectively diffused any violent elements on either side of the debate, the American public largely forgot about the issue in its entirety. Since that time, American intolerance for the teachings and interpretations of Islam has largely subsided, with few examples of its resurgence; fortunately, facts, statistics, and tolerance seem to be taking hold in most Americans. Those individuals who wish to see Muslims who practice their faith treated differently under the law will have to be content in being relegated to the annals of history, alongside every other intolerant contingent of our society.

Works Cited

"Constitution of the United States - Official." Constitution of the United States - Official. N.p., n.d. 24 Nov. 2013, www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html.

"Employment Division v. Smith." Employment Division v. Smith. N.p., 6 Nov. 1989. 24 Nov. 2013, www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0494_0872_ZO.html.

"Follow-Up Report." 7 July Review Committee. London Assembly, n.d. 26 Nov. 2013, legacy.london.gov.uk/assembly/reports/7july/follow-up-report.pdf.

"Statement by the Director of Public Affairs for the Director of National Intelligence, Shawn Turner, on the intelligence related to the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya." Office of the Director of National Intelligence. N.p., 28 Sept. 2012. 26 Nov. 2013, www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Press%20Releases/ODNI_Benghazi_Statement_9.28.2012.pdf

"Study: Threat of Muslim American Terrorism in U.S. Exaggerated." CNN. Cable News Network, 6 Jan. 2010. 26 Nov. 2013, edition.cnn.com/2010/US/01/06/mu

The 9/11 Commission report: final report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. New York: Norton, 2004.

"Volume 4: Follow-up report." July 7 Review Committee. London Assembly, 1 Aug. 2007. 26 Nov. 2013, legacy.london.gov.uk/assembly/reports/7july/follow-up-report.pdf

"Wisconsin v. Yoder." Wisconsin v. Yoder. N.p., 8 Dec. 1971. 26 Nov. 2013, <www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0406_0205_ZS.html